On 10/5/05, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However:
> f:{1}.()
>
> still parses as
>
> (&f(:{1})).()
>
> as the "adverbial block" form takes precedence. Is that also wrong?
No, that seems right to me, much in the same way that:
$x.{1}.{2}
Binds to the left.
Luke
Luke Palmer wrote:
With parentheses:
print((length "foo") < 4)
print(3 < 4)
So this was quite a disturbing bug.
This is now also quite a fixed bug. :-)
However:
f:{1}.()
still parses as
(&f(:{1})).()
as the "adverbial block" form takes precedence. Is that also wro
On 10/5/05, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IIRC, this puts f into the named unary precedence level
> which is below method postfix.
We're trying to stop using the words "below" and "above" for
precedence. Use "looser" and "tighter" instead, as there is not
ambiguity with those.
>(f ({1}.()
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 10/4/05, Miroslav Silovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Playing with pugs, I ran into this corner case:
sub f($x) { say $x; }
f {1}.(); # ok, outputs 1
IIRC, this puts f into the named unary precedence level
which is below method postfix. Thus we get
(f ({1}.())
On 10/4/05, Miroslav Silovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Playing with pugs, I ran into this corner case:
>
> sub f($x) { say $x; }
> f {1}.(); # ok, outputs 1
>
> sub f([EMAIL PROTECTED]) { say @_; }
> f {1}.(); # outputs block, tries to call a method from the return of say,
> dies
>
> Whitespace
